But you have to subtract out the responses of 47% of those people, remember... they don't count.

In all seriousness, the only things in these proposals are things people won't like.

It's either a vague threat of taxes going up or it's a vague threat that some program they do count on -- e.g., medicare/soc. security -- will be under attack.

Now, when you get to the actual deal, people can embrace it when the vague threats coalesce into specifics... especially compared with the known kick in the nads that is the fiscal cliff (if in fact people even have their heads around that yet.)

But you have to subtract out the responses of 47% of those people, remember... they don't count.
In all seriousness, the only things in these proposals are things people won't like.

It's either a vague threat of taxes going up or it's a vague threat that some program they do count on -- e.g., medicare/soc. security -- will be under attack.

Now, when you get to the actual deal, people can embrace it when the vague threats coalesce into specifics... especially compared with the known kick in the nads that is the fiscal cliff (if in fact people even have their heads around that yet.)

But you have to subtract out the responses of 47% of those people, remember... they don't count.

In all seriousness, the only things in these proposals are things people won't like.

It's either a vague threat of taxes going up or it's a vague threat that some program they do count on -- e.g., medicare/soc. security -- will be under attack.

Now, when you get to the actual deal, people can embrace it when the vague threats coalesce into specifics... especially compared with the known kick in the nads that is the fiscal cliff (if in fact people even have their heads around that yet.)

PFnV

Click to expand...

Your last point +1

I highly doubt most Americans understand how bad things will get if we just go off the cliff. Most need things explained to them and most don't want to know much about it.

If we do go off the cliff, we WILL experience significant economic hardship and increased unemployment. And if that happens, unemployment benefits won't be for 99 weeks anymore!

Scenario 1: You destroy growth and plunge America in the double-dip recession. Everybody has less, can make less, and is taxed more. All services simultaneously are deeply slashed.

Scenario 2: Growth continues, and has the chance to pick up markedly once the cliff is "past."

Scenario 1 might get us to a more manageable debt-to-GDP profile, but given its predictably effect on growth, it probably will have the opposite effect. However, the absolute number representing the debt will rise less quickly.

Scenarios 2 will get us to a more manageable debt-to-GDP profile. The absolute number representing the debt will rise more quickly, but the debt-to-GDP ratio will decline. Growth will increase, relative to scenario 1.

Do you want your bumper sticker ("I reduced the debt and all I got was this lousy bumper sticker,") or do you want a better economy, and a better debt number that matters -- that is, debt relative to the economy (as opposed to in a vacuum)?

PR, it actually sounds like you are getting this at the moment. Explain to Icy will ya?

Scenario 1: You destroy growth and plunge America in the double-dip recession. Everybody has less, can make less, and is taxed more. All services simultaneously are deeply slashed.

Scenario 2: Growth continues, and has the chance to pick up markedly once the cliff is "past."

Scenario 1 might get us to a more manageable debt-to-GDP profile, but given its predictably effect on growth, it probably will have the opposite effect. However, the absolute number representing the debt will rise less quickly.

Scenarios 2 will get us to a more manageable debt-to-GDP profile. The absolute number representing the debt will rise more quickly, but the debt-to-GDP ratio will decline. Growth will increase, relative to scenario 1.

Do you want your bumper sticker ("I reduced the debt and all I got was this lousy bumper sticker,") or do you want a better economy, and a better debt number that matters -- that is, debt relative to the economy (as opposed to in a vacuum)?

PR, it actually sounds like you are getting this at the moment. Explain to Icy will ya?

Taxes will go up and the budget will be slashed more than any cliff agreement.

Click to expand...

Obama can't allow taxes to increase on those making less than $250k or he'll lose credibility.

On top of that, most of us in that group can't afford another few grand a year in taxes. Heck, I know I can't....nor am I willing.

Not that last part matters any.

The best way for us to reduce our deficit is to increase taxes upon those who can afford it and hope our economy can get back to "normal" historical growth. The more people that have jobs, the more tax revenue our gov't gets.

Increase my taxes and I guarantee I'll spend significantly less next year. And that means no new windows and other stuff I hope to have done. I was also going to buy a new car next year, but would re-consider if my taxes are raised substantially.

Taxes will go up and the budget will be slashed more than any cliff agreement.

Click to expand...

+1

Any agreement will be more or less a useless kick the can paper weight. It will only serve to delay the inevitible. We don't have any leadership in Washington, nor do we have any intelligent, competent people. Who do you think is genuinely smart enough to understand the problems at hand? Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid? Mitch McConnel? All morons, surrounded by more morons. Who do you think is willing to not only propose the cuts and policy changes we need from top to bottom, which will require biting the political bullet, and forcing the necessary hardship on the american people, that a true fix demands? Obama, Reid, McConnell, Boehner, etc? Not only are these people incompetent, politically driven, and incapable of compromise, they all lack the leadership traits that real changes require. Do you honestly think defense spending will be cut 20-40%? Illegals deported and the border sealed? A comprehensive energy and tax policy put in place? Entitlements slashed to sustainable levels? Corporate and social welfare either eliminated, or moderated to need basis? We all know the answer to that.

The fake "deadline" will pass, and in the 11th hour an agreement not worth the toilet paper I wipe my arse with after a trip to the throne, will be celebrated as "historic" and "economy saving", only to be later disected for the fraud that it is. Kinda like government data that is initially reported, and later "revised" to soften their real meaning. A meaning that even when revised, never tells the true story. We spend $1 trillion plus more than we take in. That my friends, is unsustainable by any measure. The spending side has to come down, and it has to come down drastically. There isn't any "revenue" option that can make up that $1 trillion on a consistent, year over year basis.

You cannot simultaneously enjoy American-sized taxes and European-sized government. One or the other has got to go.

....
Generally speaking, functioning societies make good-faith efforts to raise what they spend, subject to fluctuations in economic fortune: Government spending in Australia is 33.1 percent of GDP, and tax revenues are 27.1 percent. Likewise, government spending in Norway is 46.4 percent, and revenues are 41 percent â€“ a shortfall but in the ballpark. Government spending in the United States is 42.2 percent, but revenues are 24 percent â€“ the widest spending/taxing gulf in any major economy.
...After all, as Warren Buffett pointed out in The New York Times this week, the Forbes 400 richest Americans have a combined wealth of $1.7 trillion. That sounds like a lot, and once upon a time it was. But today, if you confiscated every penny the Forbes 400 have, it would be enough to cover just over one year's federal deficit. And after that you're back to square one. It's not that "the rich" aren't paying their "fair share," it's that America isn't. A majority of the electorate has voted itself a size of government it's not willing to pay for.

It an incredibly oft-repeated idiot's chant. Go ahead and google "even if you confiscated" and see what you get. They even use the same no-doubt Luntz-inspired word every time they do this.

Here's the formula:

"Even if you confiscated 100% of" [name very small set of very wealthy people,] "it wouldn't solve" [gargantuan economic problem.]

Know what? Just give the country half of that and it would be a mammoth step toward fixing everything. But of course we can't inconvenience the rich that much.

So, we'll just hit 'em for 4.5% more marginal tax. Ta-daaaa. They'll pay for some of the solution. Other progress will come from cuts. We took 230 years to run up this debt. News flash: we don't have to pay it off in one day.

As to balancing the budget as a first step: OH NOES, we'll still likely have a deficit. Why? We're still supporting the economy.

Oh let's just stop doing that!

Um, that's pretty much what the fiscal cliff is. You jumpin'?

Fact is, you don't withdraw gubmit money during a recession. Recession might be over on paper, but we're not out of the woods. We'd be closer if pubbie state houses weren't working overtime to artificially pump up our unemployment rate by firing their essential personnel.

Bet they'll come begging to Washington later when they realize what a shambles they've made of things. Typical pubbie state-level move.

Scenario 1: You destroy growth and plunge America in the double-dip recession. Everybody has less, can make less, and is taxed more. All services simultaneously are deeply slashed.

Scenario 2: Growth continues, and has the chance to pick up markedly once the cliff is "past."

Scenario 1 might get us to a more manageable debt-to-GDP profile, but given its predictably effect on growth, it probably will have the opposite effect. However, the absolute number representing the debt will rise less quickly.

Scenarios 2 will get us to a more manageable debt-to-GDP profile. The absolute number representing the debt will rise more quickly, but the debt-to-GDP ratio will decline. Growth will increase, relative to scenario 1.

Do you want your bumper sticker ("I reduced the debt and all I got was this lousy bumper sticker,") or do you want a better economy, and a better debt number that matters -- that is, debt relative to the economy (as opposed to in a vacuum)?

PR, it actually sounds like you are getting this at the moment. Explain to Icy will ya?

PFnV

Click to expand...

Only in some fantasy would my USA government raise more revenue and actually spend less.

has my USA government actually ever done this before in my lifetime?

If the government actually has ever understood this notion why have they never done it on their own without pressure?

while pondering the above also let me know if - where - and when Obama has uttered the words he is going to squeeze for savings from every area of the budget including eliminating fraud and wasteful spending in the welfare section of the budget. I hear people threaten Medicare and seniors which is horrible ... how about all the fraud in the welfare sector ... and there is tons and tons of it.

Is it harder the same or easier to get government assistance since George Bush became President 12 years ago. Has the government looked for any ways to save money in this area or have they increased handouts without question?

Only in some fantasy would my USA government raise more revenue and actually spend less.

has my USA government actually ever done this before in my lifetime?

If the government actually has ever understood this notion why have they never done it on their own without pressure?

while pondering the above also let me know if - where - and when Obama has uttered the words he is going to squeeze for savings from every area of the budget including eliminating fraud and wasteful spending in the welfare section of the budget. I hear people threaten Medicare and seniors which is horrible ... how about all the fraud in the welfare sector ... and there is tons and tons of it.

Is it harder the same or easier to get government assistance since George Bush became President 12 years ago. Has the government looked for any ways to save money in this area or have they increased handouts without question?

Between war and welfare we are drowning.

Click to expand...

Dig deeper, Icy my friend. Look for Heritage's definition of "welfare." Come back and let me know what programs they are assigning as trillion-dollar-a-year welfare expenditures.